Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #896242

Micro Penis Nemesis: Shoe String Budget π-WAM (Re: Paul Tarau versus Mr. Taskmanager, who would win?)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Micro Penis the putin payed troll, is now
on the payment list of overpriced NVIDIA as
well. He cannot get over the concept of a

Shoe String Budget:

"According to Darren Aronofsky’s debut
1998 film Pi, “everything around us can
be represented and understood through numbers”,
from the stock market to the “wax and wane
of caribou populations”. But, ironically,
the film’s own numerical facts feel particularly
inexplicable. It was made on a budget of just
$60,000, which is less a shoestring and more
just the aglet at the end of a frayed lace.
To put that in to perspective, 1999’s The
Matrix – similarly based around the dystopian
danger of AI – may have been slightly slicker
and sexier, but also was made for $60m, a
thousand times more buck for a thousand
times less bang. Plus, it means that its
profit margin was huge. As Variety’s headline
following its release put it, ‘”π=$1,000,000!”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pi-soundtrack-20-years-aronofsky-aphex-twin-autechre/

04 Bucephalus Bouncing Ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6xDGTFswQ

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Ok I was looking at this learning challenge,
> producing vector (y1,y2,y3,y4) from a vector
> (x1,x2,x3,x4), System R can do it via least square?
> 
> | 0 0 0 1 |   | x1 |     | x4 |
> | 0 0 1 0 |   | x2 |  =  | x3 |
> | 0 1 0 0 |   | x3 |     | x2 |
> | 1 0 0 0 |   | x4 |     | x1 |
> 
> How it started:
> 
> "multiplicative RNNs arises naturally from a
> proof-theoretic interpretation of next-token
> prediction as nested intuitionistic implication"
> Paul Tarau - 2026
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19915
> 
> How its going:
> 
> "Dave uses a PDP-11 to train a real Neural
> Network complete with Transformers and
> Attention so you can see them at their most basic."
> Mr. Taskmanager - 2026
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g
> 
> We see Doctor Frankstein in action from
> the Bronze Age of Computing, producing
> a Humunkulus, the progenitor of todays
> 
> Bulgakov Shuriks in the Hyperscale Age!
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: My impression neither cut to the core, that
> this incredible transformer most likely
> produced this deterministic attention:
> 
> | -1 | * | k | + | 5 | = | k' |
> 
> Or differently expressed y_k = x_{5-k}.
> 
> How did the transformer do it? It produced
> a neural network with 1216 parameters, but
> didn't use embeddings or polar encoding
> 
> of positions. But if we strip the noise
> and denoise from the position encoding,
> the denoise is done via softmax. We somehow
> 
> must get the above, right? I still need to
> verify my claim! BTW: The PDP-11 assembly
> from 1979 uses wider example not with n=4
> 
> but with n=8.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Micro Penis Nemesis: Shoe String Budget π-WAM (Re: Paul Tarau versus Mr. Taskmanager, who would win?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-12 19:29 +0200

csiph-web